Kekosongan Hukum Dalam Penilaian Letak Kerugian Sebagai Dasar Kewenangan Peradilan Koneksitas
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Connectivity trial (or known as conflicting trials in US) are regulated by Section 89 sub-section (1) of Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure or KUHAP. This regulation determines when it is necessary to conduct a trial involving the general and military environments to examine a criminal case. The determination of which environment will become the parent court is based on discussions between the prosecutor's office and the military prosecutor as referred to in Section 91 sub-section (1) of KUHAP. However, in the practice of these discussions, there is no legal provision regarding the point of emphasis. Finally, the discussion is prone to not finding a middle point and will fall into an agency feud. For this reason, it is necessary to have legal certainty in determining losses to determine losses. This research was conducted with the aim of finding legal answers to how the legal basis for the assessment of losses to determine the authority of the connectivity trial. The research method used is in the form of normative research with a conceptual approach, statutory approach, and case study approach. The results of this study found that the assessment of losses that can be used to provide legal certainty is an assessment of losses for the costs incurred and the real costs of repairing the impact of criminal acts.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Hamilton v. Home Ins. Co., (1890).
F., Muh. I., Muchtar, S., & Muin, A. M. (2022). Kedudukan Jaksa Dalam Pelaksanaan Penuntutan Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Militer Berdasarkan Single Prosecution System. Jurnal Pro Hukum, 11(1).
Fitriana, M. K. (2014). Yurisdiksi Pengadilan Terhadap Tindak Pidana Umum yang Melibatkan Militer dan Sipil. Arena Hukum, 7(2), 151–302.
Lapae, K. A. H., Thalib, H., & Mappaselleng, N. F. (2022). Kewenangan Jaksa Agung Muda Bidang Pidana Militer Dalam Penuntutan Tindak Pidan Koneksitas. Journal of Lex Generalis (JLS), 3(9), 1507–1521.
Pakpahan, N. H., & Prasetyo, T. (2022). Urgensi Pembaruan Peraturan Persidangan Pidana Dalam Perspektif Keadilan Bermartabat. K-Media.
Peter Mahmud Marzuki. (2005). Penelitian Hukum. Kencana Prenada.
Pramono, B. (2020). Peradilan Militer di Indonesia. Scopindo Media Pustaka.
Sailaja, A., Basak, P. C., & Viswanadhan, K. G. (2015). Costs of Quality: Exploratory Analysis of Hidden Elemnts and Prioritization using Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Supply and Operation Management, 1(4), 489–506.
Sasmito Madrim. (2020, September 2). Kasus Penyerangan Polsek, Setara Usulkan Peradilan Koneksitas untuk Anggota TNI. Voice of America Indonesia.
Siryan, A. M. (2022). Penghentian Penuntutan Sebagai Alternatif Penyelesaian Perkara Tindak Pidana Dengan Pendekatan Keadilan Restoratif di Kejaksaan Negeri Makassar. Universitas Hasanuddin.
Slamet, B. (2017). Audit Investigatif. Pusdiklatwas BPKP.
Sturges, W. A., & Sturges, W. W. (1956). Appraisals of Loss and Damage Under Insurance Policies. Miami Law Quarterly, XI(1).
Tirtayasa, J. F. (2017). Diskursus Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang Dilakukan Anggota Militer di Indonesia [Master’s Thesis]. Universitas Indonesia.
Zega, K. D. (2021). Ruang Lingkup Keuangan Negara dan Metode Penilaian / Perhitungan Kerugian Negara dalam Teori Hukum dan Peraturan perundang-undangan. Mappi FHUI.